A Discussion of Some Intuitions of Defeasible Reasoning | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Discussion of Some Intuitions of Defeasible Reasoning

  • Conference paper
Methods and Applications of Artificial Intelligence (SETN 2004)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3025))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper we discuss some issues related to the intuitions of defeasible reasoning. Defeasible logic serves as the formal basis for our analysis. We also make some comments on the comparison between defeasible logics and the well-founded semantics of extended logic programs with priorities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Antoniou, G., Arief, M.: Executable Declarative Business Rules and Their Use in Electronic Commerce. In: Proc. Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 6–10. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation Results for Defeasible Logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001), American

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Billington, D.: Defeasible Logic is Stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 370–400 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Bondarenko, P., Dung, R.: Kowalski and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Brewka, G.: Well-Founded Semantics for Extended Logic Programs with Dynamic Priorities. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, 19–36 (1996)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G.: On the Relation Between Defeasible Logic and Well-Founded Semantics. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, p. 121. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dumas, M., Governatori, G., ter Hofstede, A., Oaks, P.: A formal approach to negotiating agents development. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(2) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.: The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. Journal of the ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proc. 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic Programs with Classical Negation. In: Proc. 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 579–597. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Grosof, B.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: Proc. International Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 197–211. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grosof, B., Lambrou, Y., Chan, H.: A Declarative Approach to Business Rules in Contracts: Courteous Logic Programs in XML. In: Proc. 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, ACM, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Horty, J.: Some direct theories of nonmonotonic inheritance. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 111–187. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Horty, J.: Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9, 1–28 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Horty, J.: Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135, 55–72 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Horty, J.F., Thomason, R.H., Touretzky, D.: A Skeptical Theory of Inheritance in Nonmonotonic Semantic Networks. In: Proc. AAAI 1987, pp. 358–363 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kunen, K.: Negation in Logic Programming. Journal of Logic Programming 4(4), 289–308 (1987)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Maher, M.J.: Propositional Defeasible Logic has Linear Complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 691–711 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Maher, M.J., Governatori, G.: A Semantic Decomposition of Defeasible Logics. In: Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1999), pp. 299–306 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Makinson, D., Schlechta, K.: Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the “directly skeptical” approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48, 199–209 (1991)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Morgenstern, L.: Inheritance Comes of Age: Applying Nonmonotonic Techniques to Problems in Industry. Artificial Intelligence 103, 1–34 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Nute, D.: Defeasible Reasoning. In: Proc. 20th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, pp. 470–477. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nute, D.: Defeasible Logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Prakken, H.: Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies. In: Proc. 9th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Toulouse, pp. 91–99 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Stein, L.A.: Resolving Ambiguity in Nonmonotonic Inheritance Hierarchies. Artificial Intelligence 55, 259–310 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Touretzky, D.D., Horty, J.F., Thomason, R.H.: A Clash of Intuitions: The Current State of Nonmonotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems. In: Proc. IJCAI 1987, pp. 476–482. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1987)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, Greece

    Grigoris Antoniou

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Crete, Greece

    Grigoris Antoniou

Authors
  1. Grigoris Antoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Info and Communication Systems Eng, Aegean University, 83200, Karlovassi, Samos, Greece

    George A. Vouros

  2. Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece

    Themistoklis Panayiotopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Antoniou, G. (2004). A Discussion of Some Intuitions of Defeasible Reasoning. In: Vouros, G.A., Panayiotopoulos, T. (eds) Methods and Applications of Artificial Intelligence. SETN 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3025. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24674-9_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24674-9_33

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-21937-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24674-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation